Hector Santos wrote:
"80%" is something most thinking people can relate too,
especially in anything technical related. "Substantial
portion" means nothing because it raises doubt about "what
is substantial?"
For "false positives" one permille would be already very bad.
Some people might think 5% is a substantial portion.
5%, 12%, or 20% are all far beyond any acceptable limit for
false positives...
If you want to use "great majority" or just "majority" that
would suffice.
...and the "majority" (100-5=95, 100-12=88, 100-20=80) is not
relevant for the appeal, there's no danger for this majority.
The critical mails are the _minority_ with PRA != MAIL FROM.
[in another article]
| The exact statistic measure stated numerous times can be
| summarized as:
| - Over 80% of transactions, 2822.PRA = 2821.Mail From
| and for that reason, it makes PRA/SENDERID a highly redundant
That's a completely different line of arguments, "why waste
time with PRA if MAIL FROM is the same in a majority of cases".
| I never felt assured you understanding that point
I'm not interested in the efficiency of PRA. I care about the
minority with mails rejected or PASSing for the wrong reasons,
i.e. per default considering v=spf1 as the same as spf2.0/pra.
-------
Sender Policy Framework: http://www.openspf.org/
Archives at http://archives.listbox.com/spf-discuss/current/
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your
subscription,
please go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=spf-discuss(_at_)v2(_dot_)listbox(_dot_)com